Why the 'right to decide on the national energy mix' doesn't help national mix issues in reality, or why European leaders should support ambitious and binding EU wide and national targets for renewables and efficiency.

Too often it is in human nature to hold on to old recipes that haven't worked in the past, similar to a fly that bangs against a closed window for hours to get outside, but doesn't. Sadly the same seems to be true for a number of European Environment and Energy Ministers who discussed the Commission's recent proposal for the EU's 2030 climate and energy framework over the last two days.

There are reasons to doubt that their input given to Heads of government in view of the EU Summit discussions on 20 & 21 March will provide the basis for the needed radical energy system transformation in the coming decades. The one that will break Europe's chains to a highly polluting, overly expensive and increasingly risky energy system.

Or to say it in other words, to ensure quick agreement on the ambitious and binding targets for both the EU and national level for renewable energy and energy efficiency – the two required vectors to drive greenhouse gas reduction down while advancing on the energy system modernisation and decrease the dependency on expensive and energy imports. Of course such a transformation doesn't fall from the sky. It needs a clear direction given by politicians, business and citizens, sufficient time and resources, planning and policy design to allow a progressive and most cost efficient process. However, what too many of these Ministers seem to propose is to delay this decision and go on with just the repackaged same old stuff, wrapped away under unclear policy language.

The so-called flexibility and the 'national right to decide on national energy mixes' as written down in the EU Treaties is held forward by some Ministers to keep the EU from making the needed decisions to prepare our future, from putting the deep ranging energy system transformation on track.

But what does the right to decide on national energy mixes actually mean? Part of the problem here is the role of nuclear power in the energy mix. New build power plants have proven not to be an economic viable option – the showcases in Flamanville and Olkiluoto have been demonstrating this extensively over the last decade. And more recent the UK plans for channelling huge amounts of taxpayer money over the next 35 years into another such attempt for a new build nuclear power plant in Hinkley Point C are today much as uncertain politically as economically. There is also the existing nuclear park in the EU; in which reactors' capital costs are in most cases paid off, and the power plants are so-to-say cash-cows that are happily milked by its operators.

However, the nuclear power plant park is ageing – out of 151 reactors in Europe, 66 are more than 30 years old, 25 more than 35 years, and 7 even more then 40 years, and the majority is threatening to overshoot their technical design life-time. It will be not a big surprise that nuclear power plant operators are already fiercely lobbying their governments to obtain lifetime extensions to secure this welcome income flow for some further decades, instead of having to cash out for decommissioning and waste disposal. Today's published studies that were commissioned by Greenpeace show that the increasing age of the reactors also increases the risks for a nuclear incident and significant economic and environmental damage. For citizens in the own but also in the neighbouring countries.

Betting on nuclear power plants life-time extension would be a multiple mistake for the European Union.

First of all it would catapult European citizens into a new era of risk, in the name of the benefits of a handful of economic actors and their political backers, and without having properly informed citizens but also neighbouring countries.

Then it would be a waste of money. The economics of life time extension don't work properly out either. In the US we see that in spite of receiving permission for life-time extension, necessary upgrading was too costly for five reactors last year. And in Europe, operators and politicians try to prevent any upgrading needed to bring reactors on the standards of today's best available technology – for exactly these economic reasons. A report published last week by Greenpeace France concluded 4 Billion Euro would be needed per reactor to come near to that level. That money could much more efficiently be spent in clean and safe energy technologies.

Of course this requires that alternative energy sources are in place when the demand is there. There is no reason to use fossil fuels impairing the climate to replace risky old reactors. Nor does there need to be an issue with security of supply in Europe. Energy efficiency and savings solutions and a multitude of renewable energy technologies exist and can be rolled in fast, reliably and affordable. The right interconnections and the internal market offer more than enough possibilities to prevent any security of supply issues. But it needs sincere support on European level.

The European leaders will discuss our energy future not too far after the third anniversary of the Fukushima catastrophe. If they don't shed the shackles to their big energy companies, we will be facing more Fukushimas with our ageing nuclear fleet. The last thing you want if you face a climate crisis as we do now, is being tied in by a nuclear accident. It's time to set the switches right: 55% greenhouse gas reductions in 2030, a binding minimum of 45% renewables and 40% efficiency increase. Nuclear power can't help to deliver these targets.

Jan Haverkamp is Greenpeace expert consultant on nuclear energy and energy policy and based in Gdansk, Poland, his post is based on a Greenpeace report on Nuclear power plant ageing.

Jan Haverkamp is nuclear energy and energy policy specialist for Greenpeace and professional group facilitator.

His previous work as energy campaigner and developer of environmental organisations in Central Europe brought him into contact with nuclear power and energy policy in countries across the globe. He also worked for four years as Greenpeace's EU nuclear policy advisor in Brussels. He teaches 'facilitation of environmental communication processes' and 'the role of environmental NGOs in society' at the Masaryk University in Brno, Czech Republic. His academic background is in biochemistry, nuclear physics, environmental sciences and social and communication psychology. He has two children and lives in Gdansk, Poland.

@Alasdair - Greenpeace has found out already over a decade ago that it is not nuclear versus coal that is the issue. It is neither the one, nor the other. Nuclear cannot take over the role that coal has played now - for that we need a true energy [r]evolution: a technical evolution phasing in rapidly the already available and affordable clean and renewable energy sources and energy efficiency technologies while phasing out coal, oil and gas, and risky nuclear.
Therefore Greenpeace is fighting coal in Germany and Poland (and Australia, Thailand, Russia, China, the US, South Africa and many other places). And fighting nuclear, because nuclear blocks clean development.
The impression that the German Energiewende is a failure is not an opinion you will find widely spread in Germany itself. The temperature of the debates about the details of implementation can run high - that is the German style of debate, but the direction is set and about that there is little disagreement. Germany is making the Energiewende and currently going faster than originally foreseen. The only ones who heavily criticise it are the ones who actively try to crash it: the large German utilities that have seen their market share and share prices go down because they missed the boat.
If you want to support the fight against climate change, betting on nuclear is the surest looser. It cannot deliver enough, not in time and asks for that the highest price. Not only in money, also in risk - for instance by gambling with old technology until we see another wave of closures after the next Fukushima type catastrophe. Energy efficiency and a whole spectrum of renewable energy technologies are delivering now already cheaper, faster and more reliable. I hope you will support us in that fight for a clean and livable planet.

Conc. German style... your email is a perfect illustration. As you know I have worked for decades with (and in) Germany. One of the features I like is the rigorous style of debate: a lot of facts, a lot of detail, a lot of overview and that in a mix in which emotions also can come up high. And it is not only about scoring points, though power plays can come in, but not necessarily have to be.
Concerning the Energiewende: I see now (from the outside and from the inside) in Germany a vigorous debate about a lot of aspects of the Energiewende: strategies, targets, I see powerplays from the big four utilities, political debates and a lot more.
Outside of Germany, I see how people (especially politicians, energy lobbies and media) in especially the UK, the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia interpret the tone of that debate: they think that the Energiewende is dead. They think that the heat of the German debate proves it is a complete failure.

One example as illustration: the power point with which the Polish Economy Ministry handed over its Polish Nuclear Energy Programme to the Council of Ministers justified new nuclear in Poland as follows: "From 2024, the only neighbour without nuclear power will (probably) be Germany, although the country will import large amounts of nuclear energy from France, Sweden, Czech Republic, Switzerland and Poland."

I hope this explains it to you and that you agree that that interpretation is not the right one.

lets not get lost in this type of discussion...when did Gerd Leipold leave Greenpeace after 15 years of German CEO at GPI?
Don...

Jan,

lets not get lost in this type of discussion...when did Gerd Leipold leave Greenpeace after 15 years of German CEO at GPI?
Don't get lost my friend you entered a terreain more than slippry...or do you need a little trip in Greenpeace-history?

THERFOR: I am human, I spend 8 years abroad and I live on mother earth!

Got this?

And if you happen to want to practise your German (way of thinking):

https://twitter.com/NeinQuarterly

ENERGIEWENDE: I said it before and I'll say it again, in times of limited resources (nuclear waste capacity is a resource too) each single society on earth will eventually commit itself to the Energy Revolution!

The only question is when...for this reason it was more than important that Germany's transfer went on fast (and smooth!).

Whatever you say now: the GERMAN way of managing the Energiewende, OF SHOWING THE WORLD a sustainable energy supply of an highly industrialized nation, IS POSSIBLE, is anything close to the drama we are currently able to witness...

...and which you try to eplain the Polish style.

The worst thing to me is all this was predicted by the heads which originally were responsible for the EEG, for this incredible success-story which the Energiewende used to be until shortly ago.

It was predicted that, I told you before, Big Energy and all these dark forces would try to delay the Energiewende. They were predicted to do so by making it as expensive as possible,

For example the drama currently being played OFFSHORE was named to be the number 1 tool of delaying Energiewende (in 2007). No Masterplan is a very effective tool of burning money aswell...

I strongly believe having not decently defended the German Energiewende and not having fought for the realization of it (and its European extension) on the EXPRESSLANE is one of the biggest failures of Greenpeace (somewhere close to this Tell Obama - drama).

Sorry Polish guy, if you were involved in this failure I do believe you better start to look for a new job aswell.

Sun Wu, a friend of Frits and the INDIAN style.

PS: Jan, you might not have noticed jet, but I have shifted my campaigning-focus. Two people are history and I do not have to bother anymore...

The GERMAN WAY has never been used meant to be nice at GPI. Therefor I strongly believe it should not be an Expert from Poland to revitalize it!

If you say one more time GERMAN WAY of GERMAN STYLE you will be the 5th person leaving Greenpeace (2 so far confirmed, 2 more soon :).

I know you are not polish, but I didn' know how to spell tchech-something in English and was too lazy to open a new tab...be...

Hey Jan,

I know you are not polish, but I didn' know how to spell tchech-something in English and was too lazy to open a new tab...besides this for dramaturgic reason of my line of discussion I considered Polish to be more effective.

By the way, how is the Dutch doing, from your personal experience, do you think there is Dutch persons suffering strong ressentiments for the Germans?

Just asking, I am curious.

Energiewende? Since I am conditioned by thirty years of Greenpeace I am more Greenpeace than you will ever be.

So you agree Greenpeace fucked up regarding Energiewende?

Thanks, it is obvious...

Tell Mr. or Mrs Blome that it it not time to end Nuclear!!!

In times of global warming this way of arguementation is making you vulnerable to all these attacks we can find whereever Greenpeace touches Nuclear...and the point of you opponents generally is better.

Dear Mr. or Mrs Blome, it is not time to end Nuclear...it is time to shut up about Nuclear and to:

START SUSTAINABLES in a way worth to be called the German way!!!

Something I would like to call the German way of using sustainables is the answer of how to end Nuclear.

No Polish politian, or anybody from Tchechsomething will use German Energy-Revolution to get new Nuclear plans approved with highly industrialized neigbour running its Industrie and nation on renewables.

Jan, in analytical terms you gave the best arguement the Energiewende is anything but a success at the moment...and why Greenpeace has failed (according to me).

But acknowledging a failure is the first step to do better in the future, I am anxiously waiting!

Start Renewables...and make nuclear experts at Greenpeace shut up for a while (which does not mean they shouldn't continue their great work. But unfortunately we have reached this point where STATISTICALLY carbon is killing more human beings then nuclear, and is responsible for suffering on a scale hard to imagine. Sorry guys, this puts you in a terrible position and you shouldn't start discussing unleast you are able to handle you opponent trying to promote nuclear, like the Polish did, correct Jan?

Thanks for your response, Sun-Wu. Just for your information, I started in Greenpeace in 1980, but that is not important.
I think that the German Energiewende (as well as the Spanish and Portuguese ones, which we often forget) has sufficiently proven that RE can deliver and can be expanded in the speed necessary against affordable costs. I hope this will continue, and I think it is important that people, media and governments outside of Germany understand this. We can only promote RE in countries like Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia or the UK or the Netherlands for that matter if we have the arguments on the table that RE can deliver and we have those arguments. And on top of that that the gamble of multi-Bilions of Euros (or Pounds) on more coal and nuclear are - as you also indicated - a game of playing with people's lives and the planet's stability.

It is - strategy-wise - a question of and-and, not or-or. Only if the full picture is clear, the switch towards a clean and renewable future will be made in countries like here. If you would follow the dynamic and Greenpeace strategies all over Europe, as I have to do, you would see that Greenpeace is active over the entire line and that is what is causing shifts in orientation: the coal struggles in Poland, Germany, Italy, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Belgium and the Netherlands, the nuclear struggles in the UK, France, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Spain, Belgium, the Arctic Oil work all on one side and the promotion of efficiency and renewable targets and policies on EU level and idem and technologies all over the continent (and beyond). None of these lines should shut up.

1.)
1980 and still there? That is one of the strongest indications of you everything but greenpeace (adj.) :)

2.) 'We can only ...

1.)
1980 and still there? That is one of the strongest indications of you everything but greenpeace (adj.) :)

2.) 'We can only promote RE in countries like Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia...'? Wrong, or according to my understanding not doing any good.

According to Hermann Scheer one countrie has to show the world that the Energy-Revolution. When one country is on Renewables without scrapping its economy everything else will be a homerun...

Since we are running out of time the Greenpeace-strategy of burning Greenpeace-resources all over the wolrd is not helping aswell!

A) level the way for Geman (and European) Energiewende by working on democratic legitimitation within involved societies.

B) attack the USA for ethical legitimitation for asking 2nd and 3rd world to join the struggle!!! 5% of the world's population being responsible for 25% of carbon emissions in 2014 is massmurder or genozid.

National Greenpeace-offices can, however, do whatever they like (as long as they got their finance half way right)...

...sorry, but in 2014 there is no other battlefields for Greenpeace as a whole but Germany/Europe and the USA for above mentioned reasons.

Sun Wu and the arts of war

PS: everything will change if the world is shown a better alternative to coal and nuclear, everything else, especially climate- and/or international diplomacy is a DEADEND...guess this was one of the main points of Hermann Scheer.

ENERGIE-HIGHWAYS ((8MW-windmills along the higways whereever there is suitable windconditions)

FUCK SEATEC (offshore)

FUCK DESSERTEC (only for local energy-demand of dessert-countries)

DE-ZENTRALISED (regional)!

REPOWERING (8MW windmills for smaller windmills

STANDARIZED & SIMPLIFIED PLANNING-procedures

All this needs democratically legitimized...and what is Greenpeace doing?

Head & Shoulders...shit.

Listen to the ALL-STAR-TEAM, what it has to say...and don't spent too much money/resources on trying to be better! The EEG was working, now it is time to move on!

@Jan Haverkamp- On all you comments you post many examples of statistics and data. In what seems to be an attempt to confuse you opponents in order to...

@Jan Haverkamp- On all you comments you post many examples of statistics and data. In what seems to be an attempt to confuse you opponents in order to get you narrow point of view across. Please use more logical arguments next time.
p.s. Both nuclear reactors and other green alternatives can help reduce climate change together. By attacking them you are allowing pro-fossil people to win. (This is known as divide and conquer if you didn't know already).

@bob - facts confusing? OK... I personally think that myths about "safe nuclear energy" or "nuclear energy can save the climate" that are not backed up by facts and statistics are rather confusing.
If you see lack of logic, show it. That is what discussion is for - gaining understanding.
Concerning the idea that nuclear would be in any way a green alternative, I think there is plenty of evidence to counter that.
There is also plenty of evidence to show that nuclear is not solving climate change, but exacerbates it. I have given you under another blog already the argument of the limitations of nuclear energy in the energy mix. There is furthermore the issue of the nuclear utilities in Germany, India, the US, Sweden, Finland, France, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Belgium and Spain and of course the UK undermining solution driven policies, the clash on the grids and the diversion of investment capital. Oh yes - and nuclear has some more drawbacks than hindering climate solutions: it is inherently risky, it creates waste for which there is no solution and causes proliferation of nuclear weapons.